Manhattan condos · below 96th $1,600/sf 2%Manhattan co-ops · below 96th $270K/room 2%Central Park perimeterPark Ave $472K/room 18%CPW $355K/room 5%Fifth Ave $501K/room 19%Billionaires' Row $4,313/sf 24%Greenwich Village $2,455/sf 10%
Full index →
Condominium · 1910
The Mill Building
85 North 3rd Street, Brooklyn, NY 11249
Buildings·Condominium

The Mill Building (85 North 3rd Street)

85 North 3rd Street, Brooklyn, NY 11249

BBL 3023507501 · BIN 3392272

At a glance
Year built
1910
Type
Condominium
Units
63
Landmark
No
The Data Room

Every recorded sale at this building, 2007–2026

Price-per-square-foot over time, the line- and floor-premium curves, and every recorded sale.

Median $/sf
$1,658
Listing discount
2.2%
Recorded sales
177
On record
2007–2026

The Mill Building is one of a very small number of genuine loft conversions in North Williamsburg, and the only one of them that got there through the Board of Standards and Appeals rather than through the 2005 rezoning. That distinction is the whole history of the building.

The structure dates to about 1910 and spent its working life as loft space for commercial and manufacturing use. Historical records identify the original occupant as the Hinds & Ketcham lithographing company; the offering plan, which is the more conservative source, declines to name a builder or an architect at all and notes that there was no certificate of occupancy on file at the Department of Buildings — the ordinary condition of a pre-1938 Brooklyn loft. What matters commercially is what the building is: heavy masonry, deep floor plates, wide window bays, wood columns and beams, and ceilings that run far above anything the neighborhood's new construction offers.

By the end of the twentieth century the building had filled with artists and light industry, and enough of them were living there that it fell under Article 7-C of the Multiple Dwelling Law — the Loft Law — as an Interim Multiple Dwelling. That status is the reason the conversion took the shape it did. The property sits in an M1-2 manufacturing district, where residential use is not permitted as of right. Rather than wait for a rezoning, the ownership went to the Board of Standards and Appeals and obtained a use variance under Zoning Resolution §72-21 on July 27, 2001. A further BSA letter of February 22, 2005 cleared three changes as substantially compliant: raising the residential count to 63 units, permitting the cellar commercial space to be used for parking for 29 cars, and permitting balconies along the building's north face. Every apartment in this building exists because of those two BSA actions.

The conversion itself was designed by Fifield Piaker Elman Architects, whose principal signs the alteration filings through 2004 and 2005, and carried out by Northside Development LLC and its affiliate D&A Equities, LLC, from whom the sponsor took title under a contract dated January 10, 2005. The plan budgeted roughly $10,000,000 for the proposed alterations. The condominium declaration was recorded June 18, 2007, and the first unit closed the following month.

Because the building was an IMD, the plan is a non-eviction plan with a Loft Law overlay rather than the ordinary rental-to-condominium structure. The plan provided that the building would remain under Loft Board jurisdiction until the Loft Board issued a final rent order, that on that order the remaining IMD tenants would become rent-stabilized, and that no eviction proceedings would be commenced against non-purchasing tenants for failure to purchase. It also warned, in the standard language, that because the sponsor could declare the plan effective at fifteen percent, owner-occupants might not gain control of the condominium for some time. Two decades on, the practical residue of that history is the mixed character of the unit inventory — some apartments delivered as long-occupied lofts, some fully rebuilt by the sponsor — and it is visible in the plan's own schedules.

Architecture and unit composition

Sixty-three residences run from the second floor to the penthouse; the first floor and cellar are commercial. The unit roster on the current Department of Finance roll gives the clearest picture of the inventory: fourteen units on the second floor, fourteen on the third, thirteen on the fourth, fifteen on the fifth, six on the sixth, and a penthouse. Recorded floor areas run from roughly 707 square feet to about 2,727 square feet, with the bulk of the building between 1,200 and 2,100 — a genuinely wide spread, and the reason building-average pricing is meaningless here.

No two units are alike, which is the ordinary condition of a loft conversion executed around an existing structural grid and around sitting tenants. The plan's own disclosure makes the split explicit: approximately 39 of the 63 residences were electrically rewired for modern use and furnished with washer/dryer hook-ups, and the plan names 23 units — on every floor from the second to the sixth — that were not. Those 23 are the apartments most likely to have been delivered in something close to their loft condition, and they are also the apartments where a purchaser is buying the renovation history of whoever came before rather than the sponsor's work. Establish which category a specific apartment falls into.

Seven storage units are separately assessed on the current tax roll, out of ten created under the plan, and terraces appurtenant to certain apartments are limited common elements rather than separate lots. The roof carries a common deck available to all residential owners.

The commercial condominium beneath the residences has changed character completely. The plan describes Commercial Unit 1 as twenty-seven artist studios on the cellar and first floors, leased by the sponsor, with an express warning that the sponsor made no guarantee the studios would continue. They did not: the first floor has been rebuilt over the last fifteen years into a run of large ground-floor retail tenancies, and the commercial condominium is under separate institutional ownership. The 29-space garage in the cellar was likewise offered as a transient facility with no representation that residents would have access to it.

Building operations

The Mill Building operates as an attended, full-floor-plate loft condominium with a compact amenity set — lobby attendance, roof deck, building laundry, storage — rather than the amenity program of the waterfront towers. Two utility structures shape the common charge, and both come straight from the plan: gas for heat, hot water, cooking and laundry is not separately metered and is carried in residential common charges, while electricity within each apartment is separately metered and paid by the owner, including the electricity consumed by the unit's own heat pump. In a building with fifteen-foot ceilings and very large window walls, that division is worth understanding before you underwrite a monthly.

The conversion carried the standard conversion-statute funding: a Reserve Fund under Local Law 70, estimated in the plan at $452,894.88 before sponsor credits, and a Working Capital Fund funded by a one month's common charges contribution from each purchaser at closing, with no sponsor contribution.

The tax position is the single most important operating fact in this building, and it has changed. The sponsor applied for a partial exemption under Section 11-243 of the Administrative Code — the J-51 program — and, in the plan's standard language, gave no guarantee it would be granted. It was. Department of Finance exemption records show a J-51 exemption with a fourteen-year term and benefits commencing in 2012 running on the residential unit lots. That benefit has now expired: the exemption value on the residential units fell to zero on the fiscal 2026 roll, and the fiscal 2027 roll carries no J-51 exemption on any residential unit in the building. Every apartment here is now taxed on its full assessed value in tax class 2.

That transition is not a footnote. It is the difference between the carrying cost a buyer would have modeled from a 2018 listing and the carrying cost that applies today, and it is why any comparable analysis in this building that reaches back more than about two years understates the monthly. Pull the current bill on the specific unit. There is no abatement coming back.

Policy framework

Board approval: None. The Residential Board holds a right of first refusal on any sale or lease of a residential unit. Beyond that right, the plan states the board has no power to approve or disapprove purchasers, and the By-Laws impose no owner-occupancy requirement.

Subletting, pied-à-terre, LLC and trust purchases: Permitted under standard condominium mechanics. Confirm the current lease-registration procedure and any fee with the managing agent.

Pets: Not addressed in the offering plan materials reviewed. Confirm current house rules before writing an offer.

Flip tax / transfer fee: No flip tax is described in the offering plan. Each purchaser contributes one month's common charges to the Working Capital Fund at closing. The plan also provided for a sponsor's-attorney fee of $700 on closings outside Manhattan — a sponsor-era term, not a resale term.

Washer/dryer: No unit was delivered with machines. Roughly 39 units were furnished with hook-ups; the plan names 23 that were not. Verify the specific apartment against the plan schedule and the current certificate of occupancy.

Loft Law: The building entered the condominium as an Interim Multiple Dwelling under Loft Board jurisdiction, with the plan providing that IMD tenants would become rent-stabilized on the Loft Board's final rent order and would not be evicted for failure to purchase. Ask whether a final rent order has issued and whether any regulated tenancy remains in the building.

Property taxes: J-51, fourteen-year term, benefits commencing 2012, now expired. The fiscal 2027 roll shows a zero exemption on the residential units.

Local Law 97

Carbon-penalty exposure
🟡
Moderate — under today's cap; material modeled 2030 exposure
2024–2029 annual penalty
$0 (under cap)
2030–2034 annual penalty
$22,628/yr
Per unit / month range
$0 – $30

Source: NYC LL84 benchmarking and PLUTO · The Roebling Research Library. City record last verified September 2026.

See full Local Law 97 analysis — emissions history, scenarios, methodology →

Recent sales

The Mill Building trades on a proposition almost nothing else on the Northside can make: real loft volume, real industrial fenestration, and a masonry building with a hundred-and-fifteen-year history, three blocks from the Bedford Avenue L. Buyers who want that pay a premium here against the glass condominiums of the 2006–2012 cycle. Buyers who want a thirty-fourth-floor river view and a lap pool should be steered to the waterfront rather than argued with.

Pricing runs in dollars per square foot and separates on three variables, in roughly this order: the condition and vintage of the apartment's renovation, because the sponsor delivered the building in two very different states; the size and shape of the floor plate, since units range from under 800 square feet to well over 2,500 and no two are alike; and outdoor space, since terraces are appurtenant to only some apartments. Floor matters less here than in a tower — six residential levels do not produce much of an altitude premium — and the penthouse is a category of one.

Indexed to 2025 as the last complete year, the building sits at the upper end of the Northside condominium band on a dollars-per-square-foot basis, above the low-rise new construction on the interior blocks and generally at or above the waterfront towers on a per-foot basis for comparable size, which is the ordinary pattern for loft conversions against amenity buildings. The one structural distortion in any historical comparison is the tax line: closings from the J-51 era carried a materially lower monthly than the same apartment carries today.

Unit-level transaction history is maintained in The Roebling Research Library and shared with clients during diligence.

Recent closings at this building, curated by The Roebling Team research desk. Prices are the transfer amounts recorded with the NYC Department of Finance; apartment-level detail is checked against the building’s own file in The Roebling Research Library before publishing.

DateUnitApartmentPricePPSFvs. Ask
Aug 25, 2026204
3 BR · 2 BA · 2,430 sf
$4,850,000$1,996/sf-2.9%
Aug 25, 2026312
1 BR · 1 BA · 1,200 sf
$1,995,000$1,663/sf+0.0%
Jun 17, 2026214
1 BR · 1 BA · 1,203 sf
$1,850,000$1,538/sf+0.0%
Mar 20, 2026309
2 BR · 2 BA · 1,800 sf
$2,975,000$1,653/sf-0.7%
Nov 7, 2024404
3 BR · 2 BA · 1,884 sf
$2,725,000$1,446/sfoff-mkt
Jul 9, 2024408
3 BR · 2 BA · 1,972 sf
$2,500,000$1,268/sf-3.8%
May 16, 2024308
2 BR · 2 BA · 1,750 sf
$2,100,000$1,200/sf-2.3%
Mar 29, 2024504
1 BA · 897 sf
$1,091,750$1,217/sf+4.1%

Market read. Most recent trades (2026) cleared a median $1,658/sf across 4 sales. Median listing discount 2.2% from the last ask — a recurring negotiation gap worth pricing into any offer or listing strategy.

The retrade record

Lines that have traded more than once in the public record — the building’s appreciation arc, apartment by apartment.

602 · 1,285 sf+270%
$539,811 ($420/sf) 2008$1,999,990 ($1,556/sf) 2022
409 · 1,795 sf+254%
$763,687 ($425/sf) 2007$1,350,000 ($681/sf) 2010$2,700,000 ($1,504/sf) 2022
413 · 1,750 sf+244%
$654,750 ($375/sf) 2007$1,700,000 ($971/sf) 2014$2,250,000 ($1,286/sf) 2021
514 · 2,200 sf+214%
$1,700,000 ($794/sf) 2013$5,330,000 ($2,423/sf) 2022
312 · 1,200 sf+209%
$646,588 ($535/sf) 2007$736,250 ($609/sf) 2010$1,500,000 ($1,238/sf) 2013$1,995,000 ($1,663/sf) 2026
View all 177 recorded sales, sortable

Full closing history with price-per-square-foot over time, the complete retrade record, and every line that has traded.

Sales sourced from NYC Department of Finance recorded transfers (BBL 3-02350-7501) and verified listing data. Apartment-level facts (line, condition, asking-price context) curated and cross-verified by The Roebling Team research desk. Not all transactions cross-verify with ACRIS records — sponsor and LLC purchases sometimes record at stipulated values rather than market price; square footage from recorded condo declarations and offering plans.

What to know if you’re buying

Model the tax at the current, un-abated bill. The J-51 exemption is gone as of the fiscal 2027 roll. Any monthly figure derived from a listing or a comparable more than two years old is wrong in the same direction.

Find out which apartment you are buying. The plan divides the building into roughly 39 units the sponsor rewired and fitted with laundry hook-ups and 23 it did not. That is the single largest determinant of what work an apartment needs and what the last owner already did.

Ask about Loft Law residue. The building converted out of Interim Multiple Dwelling status under Loft Board jurisdiction. Confirm that a final rent order has issued and whether any rent-stabilized tenancy survives anywhere in the building.

The retail and the garage are neighbors, not amenities. Commercial Unit 1 and the Parking Unit were retained by the sponsor and are separately owned. The plan expressly disclaims any guarantee that garage spaces would be available to residents, and the ground floor has already changed use once.

Expect gas in the common charge. Heat, hot water, cooking and laundry gas are master-metered and carried in common charges; only apartment electricity is yours. In a loft with fifteen-foot ceilings, that matters.

Condominium mechanics are simple. Right of first refusal, no board approval, no owner-occupancy requirement, no flip tax in the plan, one month's common charges into the working capital fund at closing.

What to know if you’re selling

Lead with what the building is. A 1910 lithography loft that became residential by BSA variance in a manufacturing district, with fifteen-foot ceilings, wood columns and factory windows. There are perhaps three buildings in North Williamsburg that can say that, and the buyers who pay the premium here are buying exactly that.

Prepare the tax conversation before the first showing. J-51 has expired. A seller who presents the current bill and a modeled carrying cost controls that conversation; a seller who lets the buyer's attorney discover it does not.

Document the renovation. In a building where the sponsor delivered two grades of apartment, evidence of scope, permits and sign-offs is worth real money — and its absence invites a discount.

Price on the line and the condition, not the building average. With units from under 800 to over 2,700 square feet and no two alike, only same-size, same-condition closings are an honest anchor.

Comparable buildings

If you're considering The Mill Building, also evaluate:

How to read the facts on this page. Items attributed to an offering plan describe the building as it was offered at that filing — unit mix, square footage, the amenity program as planned. They are not a statement about how the building operates today. Tax and compliance figures are sourced separately to current City records and carry their own dates. House rules, staffing and fee policy can change by board resolution without any public filing: treat every policy line here as a starting point for diligence and confirm it with the managing agent.

Considering a move at The Mill Building?

Request a private building brief with the relevant comparable sales, current and off-market availability, and an apartment-specific view of value.

Prefer to speak directly? Schedule a consultation →
Corey Cohen, Principal · The Roebling Team at Compass
646.939.7375 · c.cohen@compass.com
Considering a sale?

Own an apartment here? See what it would sell for.

A Private Pricing Opinion — what your apartment at The Mill Building would likely sell for today, what it costs to sell, and what you’d walk away with — reviewed personally against condition, exposures, renovation quality, and the competition actually on the market.